Post by z3d on Nov 1, 2015 15:38:29 GMT
Hello Folks 
I had in loan for quite some time the Polaris unit from Frans and I did a proper comparison between this amplifier and the Ember I own.
Doing this comparison provided a lot of fun to me and was indeed enlightening.
I wish that sharing my findings could help some people as I think that many points of view are always more than welcome.
I hope that you will enjoy reading all this as I enjoyed writing it down, it was a pleasure.
Setup
Windows 7 64bit-> foobar2000 -> no resampler -> Asus Essence STX (modded) -> Polaris/Ember -> Sennheiser HD600
Ember: Low Gain, Low output R , Caps bypassed
Polaris: Low Gain, Low output R, With attenuation module, High Bandwidth (no FR roll-off)
Music used for testing
Amber Rubarth – Full Moon in Paris (96Khz 24Bit, binaural)
Amber Rubarth – Strive (96Khz 24Bit, binaural)
Angus & Julia Stone – Death Defying Acts (96Khz 24Bit)
Angus & Julia Stone – Get Home (96Khz 24Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Corbeau (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Francis (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Printemps (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Daft Punk – Giorgio by Moroder (88,2Khz 24Bit)
Dido – Safe Trip Home (MP3 192Kps)
Dire Straits – Water of Love (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Enya – A Day Without Rain (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Evelyne Parouty – Aux couleurs des papillons (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Fabrizio de André & Mina – La canzone di Marinella (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Lostprophets – Last Train Home (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Marike Jager – Wings (MP3 320Kps)
Mina – Come se io fossi lì (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Mina (ft. Lucio Dalla) – Amore Disperato (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Natalie Merchant – Maggie Said (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Oscar Lopez – Classical Soul (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Premiata Forneria Marconi – Peninsula (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Russian Circles – Harper Lewis (96Khz 24Bit)
Some more info about the comparison
The amplifiers were set in order to output 400mV AC on the TRS jack into my HD600 when playing a 440Hz tone. The measurements were taken and the volpot adjusted accordingly after each amplifier or valve switch (in case of Ember).
I choose 400mV AC because the level output provided the sweet spot for me for long listening sessions and for picking out the fine-details in the recordings. A higher output (level) will have provided me more engagement but more fatigue and a hard work picking out the micro-details resulting in a less proper comparison.
I tried to have the most objective impressions and thoughts as possible and avoid being biased; to reach that I ran several tests in several days in several hours of the day for having mixed impressions on my whitepapers and coming in a more objective way to conclusions.
Also the order in which the amplifiers were compared was different all the time and also the tube rolling in Ember in order to eliminate bias and long-term listening impressions which could provide me wrong feelings.
Tube used
Ken-rad 6SN7GT '1951 (GE 6SN7GTB), RCA 6SN7GTB (Orange label), RCA 6CG7
I didn't used Ken-rad VT231 6SN7GT, Sylvania VT231 6SN7GT, Fivre 6SN7GT, 12AU7, CV 4024, 12AT7, 12AX7, 6N1P, 6N2P, 6N6P and Tungsram E80CC tubes either because I have mixed feelings about them or because they have a bit too much of euphony (distortions) in certain frequency ranges that lead to a less neutral and natural sound, even if in certain songs they have the edge over the other tubes.
My choice went for those tubes which presented a good tonal balance in the entire frequency spectrum and which had good balance between triodes.
Listening impressions
Bass
Polaris have great extention and dynamics in all the frequency range, including subbass frequencies. The bass here is tight, articulated and well-controlled. You really feel that the amplifier have the grasp on the drivers. There is not blurr around the notes and everything does sound just right.
Ember's bass performance varies because of the different tubes plugged in; with some we get a raised bass of around 1-1,5db compared to Polaris but it goes not as low. This let a listening impression of an added bloom in the bass but also a sense of articulation and details which got lost. With a different tube we get a flatter bass presentation similar to Polaris with deep and articulated, well defined and controlled bass; what differs here is the impression of an even more tigh bass for Polaris, probably because of the more pitch black blackground which causes this feeling.
Both are great performers here but after careful listening Polaris get the edge for a small margin.
Polaris 5/5 Ember 4/5
Mids
Polaris have a neutral and grain-free presentation there. The pitch black blackground and the perceived (probably only because of that different blackground) more air between instruments and voices make the sound picture crystal clear and well defined. I think the presentation is more flat and neutral and sometimes I can hear the 3Khz spike of my HD600, even if it is not pronounced and it doesn't hurt really.
Ember gets that 3Khz spike tamed down most of the time (not with all the tubes though) and the presentation of the voices is more euphonic giving a more forward presentation of those; this can lead to think that the voices are clearer in Ember but actually if you adjust the volume a little to correct this you will find that it is not the case and both amplifiers are in par in this aspect.
Male voices are also on par and I haven't really a preference between the two, both provide a great performance.
With female voices though I give the edge to Ember because the little euphonic addition there lead to a more natural and lifelike presentation, as if the singer was singing in front of you in the room, instead out of an hi-fi chain.
That hint of more realism in female voices
Changing valve here lead toward a more forward and full-bodied presentation. But with it you get some grain which, as in movies, can be good or not depending on what do you like and on the recording. For sure this is a less neutral presentation but with the right recording it gets indeed interesting.
On strings the added euphonics of the "flatter" tube results in a more natural perceived tone which I get as more pleasant when compared to Polaris (not by a big margin though).
Using the warmer valve add some body and bloom to the strings but leads to a perceived lesser detail, air and overall cohesiveness of the music which is less enjoyable.
Polaris 4/5 Ember 4,5/5
Highs
I think here is were we have a bit of headroom for improvements for both amplifiers.
Not that they sound bad, artificial or anything like that because in fact they are the opposite: enjoyable, believable, clear and crisp without hurting you.
What do I feel could be better is the retrieval of fine-details and the perceived air. I find that both amps provide the same fine-details but Polaris have an hint of more perceived air and sharper contours; those are very little differences which are quite hard to pick out, so I'm just speaking about subleties here.
For both amps there isn't grain or blurred countours, the instruments are clear and the perceived air inbetween is good. The extension is good and I don't feel that there is any audible roll-off.
Also in Polaris I don't hear any digital glare and I even consider both amps on par there; very similar good performance so don't fear of having hard-hitting and hurting highs through Polaris, because you won't have
So, for the highs I'd say just that if Jeremy will even try to make a better Polaris or Ember, here is where I'd like to see him concentrate his efforts, even if the actual performance of both amps is quite good and for sure enjoyable.
Polaris 4/5 Ember 4/5
Micro-details
Both amps delivers fine micro-details retrieval but Polaris get the edge here. I think the actual detail retrieval is the same for both but the pitch black perceived blackground in Polaris make easier to pick out the tiny details.
You can just focus better on the sounds you want to isolate, great performance in this aspect.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 4/5
Tonality
Polaris is flat in the entire FR, without any perceived peaks or dips. Voices aren't backwards but just right where they should be. All is perceived as crisp, well defined and stable and the provided engagement will make you tap your foot on the floor.
Ember with a flat tube (well...ok, a less-distorsions one
) which adds only a slight colouration in the mids is indeed a great listening experience, honestly the reference of the contenders there. This little harmonic addition make things just more life-like and even more believable.
When using a more euphonic tube the perceived sound is enjoyable, more laid back and polite sounding. The bass and highs are less present and so you will find yourself wanting for more volume and in fact you will do it, because you don't feel any listening fatigue.
Considering the entire FR range both amps are equally good, even if a tad different in the presentation; whether you will prefer one or the other is more of a personal preference there.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 4,5/5
Soundstage
The soundstage perceived through Polaris is stable, well defined. I get a good depth feeling and the presentation is always fine and rock solid even with different music styles.
The better depth leads to a more 3D sound which is more believable than in Ember, expecially in complex recordings.
Through Ember it does varies quite a lot because of the tubes used. With a warmer one I feel that in complex transitions the sounds get less defined, a bit ***led and slow, as if the recording was too fast for the valve to follow; the instruments get mixed together instead of being well defined and stable in the soundstage. The width is also narrower than on Polaris.
Using a flatter tube leads to a more wider soundstage, but the width on Polaris is still unmatched, even if not by a big margin.
The sense of space is again different and the positioning of instruments and voices less stable.
In general in Ember the perceived soundstage does shift in the space, above or below our eye-line when different tubes and recordings are used.
Polaris provide a much more constant performance which is similar to what experienced when listening through a pair of speakers.
Ember isn't terrible in that, rest assured, but I found the differences there to be not little when comparing side by side both units and the results after some proper testing being quite interesting.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 3,5/5
Conclusions
Given the results above Polaris get the edge of the comparison by a tiny margin. This complies with what I think when considering the general listening experience provided by both amplifiers. Both are really good performers and somewhat similar like two faces of the same coin or like brother & sister.
When taking in consideration the price to performance ratio, which I think makes the real value of a product, Polaris takes the lead and deserve absolutely a 5/5 vote.
Buy it, it’s a no brainer in it’s price bracket and even above, you won't regret your purchase.
Ember's performance is highly tube dependent. You can tame some peaks or dips from your headphones using dfferent valves and that's a great plus to the flexibility of the amplifier.
This is a great amp and the fun (and experience) you get by rolling different tubes is something special which deserves a special mention.
I have to consider it's higher price tag and the additional cost of the tubes though so I give her a final score of 4/5.
I had in loan for quite some time the Polaris unit from Frans and I did a proper comparison between this amplifier and the Ember I own.
Doing this comparison provided a lot of fun to me and was indeed enlightening.
I wish that sharing my findings could help some people as I think that many points of view are always more than welcome.
I hope that you will enjoy reading all this as I enjoyed writing it down, it was a pleasure.
Setup
Windows 7 64bit-> foobar2000 -> no resampler -> Asus Essence STX (modded) -> Polaris/Ember -> Sennheiser HD600
Ember: Low Gain, Low output R , Caps bypassed
Polaris: Low Gain, Low output R, With attenuation module, High Bandwidth (no FR roll-off)
Music used for testing
Amber Rubarth – Full Moon in Paris (96Khz 24Bit, binaural)
Amber Rubarth – Strive (96Khz 24Bit, binaural)
Angus & Julia Stone – Death Defying Acts (96Khz 24Bit)
Angus & Julia Stone – Get Home (96Khz 24Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Corbeau (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Francis (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Coeur de Pirate – Printemps (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Daft Punk – Giorgio by Moroder (88,2Khz 24Bit)
Dido – Safe Trip Home (MP3 192Kps)
Dire Straits – Water of Love (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Enya – A Day Without Rain (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Evelyne Parouty – Aux couleurs des papillons (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Fabrizio de André & Mina – La canzone di Marinella (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Lostprophets – Last Train Home (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Marike Jager – Wings (MP3 320Kps)
Mina – Come se io fossi lì (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Mina (ft. Lucio Dalla) – Amore Disperato (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Natalie Merchant – Maggie Said (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Oscar Lopez – Classical Soul (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Premiata Forneria Marconi – Peninsula (44,1Khz 16Bit)
Russian Circles – Harper Lewis (96Khz 24Bit)
Some more info about the comparison
The amplifiers were set in order to output 400mV AC on the TRS jack into my HD600 when playing a 440Hz tone. The measurements were taken and the volpot adjusted accordingly after each amplifier or valve switch (in case of Ember).
I choose 400mV AC because the level output provided the sweet spot for me for long listening sessions and for picking out the fine-details in the recordings. A higher output (level) will have provided me more engagement but more fatigue and a hard work picking out the micro-details resulting in a less proper comparison.
I tried to have the most objective impressions and thoughts as possible and avoid being biased; to reach that I ran several tests in several days in several hours of the day for having mixed impressions on my whitepapers and coming in a more objective way to conclusions.
Also the order in which the amplifiers were compared was different all the time and also the tube rolling in Ember in order to eliminate bias and long-term listening impressions which could provide me wrong feelings.
Tube used
Ken-rad 6SN7GT '1951 (GE 6SN7GTB), RCA 6SN7GTB (Orange label), RCA 6CG7
I didn't used Ken-rad VT231 6SN7GT, Sylvania VT231 6SN7GT, Fivre 6SN7GT, 12AU7, CV 4024, 12AT7, 12AX7, 6N1P, 6N2P, 6N6P and Tungsram E80CC tubes either because I have mixed feelings about them or because they have a bit too much of euphony (distortions) in certain frequency ranges that lead to a less neutral and natural sound, even if in certain songs they have the edge over the other tubes.
My choice went for those tubes which presented a good tonal balance in the entire frequency spectrum and which had good balance between triodes.
Listening impressions
Bass
Polaris have great extention and dynamics in all the frequency range, including subbass frequencies. The bass here is tight, articulated and well-controlled. You really feel that the amplifier have the grasp on the drivers. There is not blurr around the notes and everything does sound just right.
Ember's bass performance varies because of the different tubes plugged in; with some we get a raised bass of around 1-1,5db compared to Polaris but it goes not as low. This let a listening impression of an added bloom in the bass but also a sense of articulation and details which got lost. With a different tube we get a flatter bass presentation similar to Polaris with deep and articulated, well defined and controlled bass; what differs here is the impression of an even more tigh bass for Polaris, probably because of the more pitch black blackground which causes this feeling.
Both are great performers here but after careful listening Polaris get the edge for a small margin.
Polaris 5/5 Ember 4/5
Mids
Polaris have a neutral and grain-free presentation there. The pitch black blackground and the perceived (probably only because of that different blackground) more air between instruments and voices make the sound picture crystal clear and well defined. I think the presentation is more flat and neutral and sometimes I can hear the 3Khz spike of my HD600, even if it is not pronounced and it doesn't hurt really.
Ember gets that 3Khz spike tamed down most of the time (not with all the tubes though) and the presentation of the voices is more euphonic giving a more forward presentation of those; this can lead to think that the voices are clearer in Ember but actually if you adjust the volume a little to correct this you will find that it is not the case and both amplifiers are in par in this aspect.
Male voices are also on par and I haven't really a preference between the two, both provide a great performance.
With female voices though I give the edge to Ember because the little euphonic addition there lead to a more natural and lifelike presentation, as if the singer was singing in front of you in the room, instead out of an hi-fi chain.
That hint of more realism in female voices
Changing valve here lead toward a more forward and full-bodied presentation. But with it you get some grain which, as in movies, can be good or not depending on what do you like and on the recording. For sure this is a less neutral presentation but with the right recording it gets indeed interesting.
On strings the added euphonics of the "flatter" tube results in a more natural perceived tone which I get as more pleasant when compared to Polaris (not by a big margin though).
Using the warmer valve add some body and bloom to the strings but leads to a perceived lesser detail, air and overall cohesiveness of the music which is less enjoyable.
Polaris 4/5 Ember 4,5/5
Highs
I think here is were we have a bit of headroom for improvements for both amplifiers.
Not that they sound bad, artificial or anything like that because in fact they are the opposite: enjoyable, believable, clear and crisp without hurting you.
What do I feel could be better is the retrieval of fine-details and the perceived air. I find that both amps provide the same fine-details but Polaris have an hint of more perceived air and sharper contours; those are very little differences which are quite hard to pick out, so I'm just speaking about subleties here.
For both amps there isn't grain or blurred countours, the instruments are clear and the perceived air inbetween is good. The extension is good and I don't feel that there is any audible roll-off.
Also in Polaris I don't hear any digital glare and I even consider both amps on par there; very similar good performance so don't fear of having hard-hitting and hurting highs through Polaris, because you won't have
So, for the highs I'd say just that if Jeremy will even try to make a better Polaris or Ember, here is where I'd like to see him concentrate his efforts, even if the actual performance of both amps is quite good and for sure enjoyable.
Polaris 4/5 Ember 4/5
Micro-details
Both amps delivers fine micro-details retrieval but Polaris get the edge here. I think the actual detail retrieval is the same for both but the pitch black perceived blackground in Polaris make easier to pick out the tiny details.
You can just focus better on the sounds you want to isolate, great performance in this aspect.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 4/5
Tonality
Polaris is flat in the entire FR, without any perceived peaks or dips. Voices aren't backwards but just right where they should be. All is perceived as crisp, well defined and stable and the provided engagement will make you tap your foot on the floor.
Ember with a flat tube (well...ok, a less-distorsions one
) which adds only a slight colouration in the mids is indeed a great listening experience, honestly the reference of the contenders there. This little harmonic addition make things just more life-like and even more believable. When using a more euphonic tube the perceived sound is enjoyable, more laid back and polite sounding. The bass and highs are less present and so you will find yourself wanting for more volume and in fact you will do it, because you don't feel any listening fatigue.
Considering the entire FR range both amps are equally good, even if a tad different in the presentation; whether you will prefer one or the other is more of a personal preference there.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 4,5/5
Soundstage
The soundstage perceived through Polaris is stable, well defined. I get a good depth feeling and the presentation is always fine and rock solid even with different music styles.
The better depth leads to a more 3D sound which is more believable than in Ember, expecially in complex recordings.
Through Ember it does varies quite a lot because of the tubes used. With a warmer one I feel that in complex transitions the sounds get less defined, a bit ***led and slow, as if the recording was too fast for the valve to follow; the instruments get mixed together instead of being well defined and stable in the soundstage. The width is also narrower than on Polaris.
Using a flatter tube leads to a more wider soundstage, but the width on Polaris is still unmatched, even if not by a big margin.
The sense of space is again different and the positioning of instruments and voices less stable.
In general in Ember the perceived soundstage does shift in the space, above or below our eye-line when different tubes and recordings are used.
Polaris provide a much more constant performance which is similar to what experienced when listening through a pair of speakers.
Ember isn't terrible in that, rest assured, but I found the differences there to be not little when comparing side by side both units and the results after some proper testing being quite interesting.
Polaris 4,5/5 Ember 3,5/5
Conclusions
Given the results above Polaris get the edge of the comparison by a tiny margin. This complies with what I think when considering the general listening experience provided by both amplifiers. Both are really good performers and somewhat similar like two faces of the same coin or like brother & sister.
When taking in consideration the price to performance ratio, which I think makes the real value of a product, Polaris takes the lead and deserve absolutely a 5/5 vote.
Buy it, it’s a no brainer in it’s price bracket and even above, you won't regret your purchase.
Ember's performance is highly tube dependent. You can tame some peaks or dips from your headphones using dfferent valves and that's a great plus to the flexibility of the amplifier.
This is a great amp and the fun (and experience) you get by rolling different tubes is something special which deserves a special mention.
I have to consider it's higher price tag and the additional cost of the tubes though so I give her a final score of 4/5.
